Researchers bet labs won't agree on a single credible third-party safety evaluator
NathanpmYoung · x · 2026-09-13
Responding to @suchenzang's claim that AI labs will place near-zero odds on agreeing to a single third-party safety evaluator, Nathan Young offered a bet. The argument: no body would be competent enough to run real frontier evals (beyond repackaging existing ones), financially independent of existing labs, and have the backbone to speak up when things go wrong.
More from Safety
- Critics ask whether METR-style review agencies create GFC-like rubber-stamp incentives — gleech · 2026-09-14
- Polymarket misquotes Dario Amodei: he said joint oversight, not handing over Anthropic — austinc3301 · 2026-09-14
- US schools warn of viral AI 'Cat in the Hat' threat trend; teens arrested — nordicinst · 2026-09-14
- Investor Alsop: AI's real existential risk is cybersecurity, not doom narratives — StewartalsopIII · 2026-09-14
- Independence is a mechanism and institution design problem, not just competence — _onionesque · 2026-09-14
- Yoav Artzi on OpenAI's Black Hat talk: "the level of negligence is insane" — yoavartzi · 2026-09-14